Telechat Review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-06
review-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-06-genart-telechat-halpern-2015-09-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-07-07
Requested 2015-07-02
Draft last updated 2015-09-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Adam Montville (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-06-genart-telechat-halpern-2015-09-11
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2015-09-11

Review
review-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-06-genart-telechat-halpern-2015-09-11

The document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.



Upon  re-review, the addition of section 3.4 raises a question of 


clarity.  As written, the text says that the hash function matters only 


to the original thumbprint provider.  Should there be a little bit of 


text talking about the need for the hash function to be the same for 


thumbprints to be comparable, or, phrased alternatively, that 


thumbprints with different hashes must not be compared?  If there were 


no need for consistent production of the thumbprint, there would be no 


need for a Proposed Standard for the document.




Yours,
Joel

The new section 3.4
On 6/19/15 12:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05
     JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 19-June-2015
IETF LC End Date: N/A
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: The internet draft is ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard.

[Note to readers:
This review is provided because the spreadsheet said so.  The draft
appears not to be in last call yet.
Also, this reviewer did not attempt to second-guess the design choices
made by the WG.  The choices are well-explain, and I understand it to be
the WGs job to make them.]

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments: N/A

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art at ietf.org


https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art